FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L

Last updated Jun 25, 2026

FEMQ.L (Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF) and XEMD.L (Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D) are both Emerging Markets Equities funds tracking the MSCI EM NR USD, from Fidelity and Xtrackers respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 3 years, FEMQ.L returned 24.16%/yr vs 23.76%/yr for XEMD.L. A 0.79 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. FEMQ.L charges 0.50%/yr vs 0.18%/yr for XEMD.L.

Performance

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

FEMQ.L is traded in GBP, while XEMD.L is traded in EUR. To make them comparable, the XEMD.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, FEMQ.L achieves a 34.66% return, which is significantly higher than XEMD.L's 23.05% return.

FEMQ.L

• 1D: -0.26%
• 1M: 5.57%
• YTD: 34.66%
• 6M: 35.13%
• 1Y: 52.65%
• 3Y*: 24.16%
• 5Y*: 9.47%
• 10Y*: —

XEMD.L

• 1D: 0.02%
• 1M: 2.27%
• YTD: 23.05%
• 6M: 23.41%
• 1Y: 45.89%
• 3Y*: 23.76%
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021
FEMQ.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	34.66%	20.96%	6.47%	9.75%	-15.02%	2.60%
XEMD.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D	23.05%	40.78%	2.71%	7.10%	-16.51%	-2.69%

Correlation

The correlation between FEMQ.L and XEMD.L is 0.79, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.79
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.78
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 3, 2021	0.79

The correlation between FEMQ.L and XEMD.L has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.78 to 0.79 - a consistent structural relationship.

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	FEMQ.L	XEMD.L
Technology	48.7%	43.6%
Financial Services	17.6%	17.6%
Consumer Cyclical	9.5%	8.5%
Industrials	7.4%	6.7%
Basic Materials	4.8%	5.9%
Energy	3.0%	3.5%
Communication Services	2.4%	6.1%
Consumer Defensive	2.0%	2.7%
Utilities	1.8%	1.9%
Healthcare	1.7%	2.6%
Real Estate	1.2%	1.0%

Return for Risk

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

FEMQ.L

FEMQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 92
FEMQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 93
FEMQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 91

XEMD.L

XEMD.L Risk / Return Rank: 74
XEMD.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 75
XEMD.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 70
XEMD.L Omega Ratio Rank: 76
XEMD.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 75
XEMD.L Martin Ratio Rank: 73

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) and Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	FEMQ.L	XEMD.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	2.98	2.19	+0.79
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	3.93	2.79	+1.14
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.57	1.41	+0.16
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	5.92	3.42	+2.50
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	18.37	11.85	+6.52

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current FEMQ.L Sharpe Ratio is 2.98, which is higher than the XEMD.L Sharpe Ratio of 2.19. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of FEMQ.L and XEMD.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum FEMQ.L drawdown since its inception was -39.52%, which is greater than XEMD.L's maximum drawdown of -32.36%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for FEMQ.L and XEMD.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	FEMQ.L	XEMD.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-39.52%	-32.36%	-7.16%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-8.85%	-13.36%	+4.51%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.89%	-15.44%	+0.55%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-25.31%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-5.59%	-5.21%	-0.38%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-14.83%	-11.97%	-2.86%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	2.86%	3.86%	-1.00%

Volatility

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Volatility Comparison

The current volatility for Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF (FEMQ.L) is 8.69%, while Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D (XEMD.L) has a volatility of 9.60%. This indicates that FEMQ.L experiences smaller price fluctuations and is considered to be less risky than XEMD.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	FEMQ.L	XEMD.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	8.69%	9.60%	-0.91%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	15.84%	18.88%	-3.04%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.67%	21.03%	-3.36%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	15.42%	19.46%	-4.04%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	19.34%	19.46%	-0.12%

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

FEMQ.L has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is higher than XEMD.L's 0.18% expense ratio.

Dividends

FEMQ.L vs. XEMD.L - Dividend Comparison

FEMQ.L has not paid dividends to shareholders, while XEMD.L's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 1.57%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022
FEMQ.L Fidelity Emerging Markets Quality Income UCITS ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
XEMD.L Xtrackers MSCI Emerging Markets UCITS ETF 1D	1.57%	1.86%	3.12%	2.33%	2.56%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both FEMQ.L and XEMD.L in my portfolio?

FEMQ.L and XEMD.L have a correlation of 0.79, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, FEMQ.L or XEMD.L?

On fees, XEMD.L is cheaper at 0.18% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, FEMQ.L or XEMD.L?

XEMD.L is cheaper with a 0.18% expense ratio, compared with 0.50% for FEMQ.L.

What is the main difference between FEMQ.L and XEMD.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI EM NR USD. They also come from different issuers: Fidelity and Xtrackers. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for FEMQ.L and 0.18% for XEMD.L.